Liberal goo-goos and “good citizens” of all stripes are fond of saying that “We must continue to obey the law while we work to change it.” Every day I become more convinced that this approach gets things precisely backwards. Each day’s news demonstrates the futility of attempts at legislative reform, compared to direct action to make the laws unenforceable.

The principle was stated most effectively by Charles Johnson, one of the more prominent writers on the libertarian Left (“Counter-economic Optimism,” Rad Geek People’s Daily, Feb. 7, 2009):

“If you put all your hope for social change in legal reform … then … you will find yourself outmaneuvered at every turn by those who have the deepest pockets and the best media access and the tightest connections. There is no hope for turning this system against them; because, after all, the system was made for them and the system was made by them. Reformist political campaigns inevitably turn out to suck a lot of time and money into the politics—with just about none of the reform coming out on the other end.”

Far greater success can be achieved, at a tiny fraction of the cost, by “bypassing those laws and making them irrelevant to your life.”

Johnson wrote in the immediate context of copyright law. In response to an anti-copyright blogger who closed up shop in despair over the increasingly draconian nature of copyright law, he pointed to the state’s imploding ability to enforce such laws. The DRM of popular music and movie content is typically cracked within hours of its release, and it becomes freely available for torrent download. Ever harsher surveillance by ISPs in collusion with content “owners” is countered by the use of anonymizers and proxies. And the all-pervasive “anti-songlifting” curriculum in the publik skools, in today’s youth culture, is met with the same incredulous hilarity as a showing of “Reefer Madness” to a bunch of potheads.

The weakest link in any legal regime, no matter how repressive on paper, is its enforcement.

I saw a couple of heartening news items this past week that illustrate the same principle. First, a judge in Missoula County Montana complained that it would soon likely become almost impossible to enforce anti-marijuana laws because of the increasing difficulty of seating juries. In a recent drug case, so many potential jurors in the voir dire process declared their unwillingness to enforce the pot laws that the prosecution chose to work out a plea deal instead. The defendant’s attorney stated that public opinion “is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances …” The same thing happened in about sixty percent of alcohol cases under Prohibition.

Public agitation against a law may be very fruitful indeed — but not so much by creating pressure to change the law as by creating a climate of public opinion such that it becomes a dead letter.

Another morale booster is the rapidly improving technology for recording cops, which Radley Balko (a journalist whose chief bailiwick is police misbehavior) describes in the January issue of Reason Magazine (“How to Record the Cops“). Miniaturized, unobtrusive video cameras with upload capability can instantly transmit images for storage offsite or stream content directly to the Internet — which means that the all-too-frequent tendency of thuggish cops to seize or destroy cameras will result only in video of the very act of seizure or destruction itself being widely distributed on the Internet. “Smile, Officer Friendly — you’re on Candid Camera!”

The practical implication, according to Balko, is this:

“Prior to this technology, prosecutors and the courts nearly always deferred to the police narrative. Now that narrative has to be consistent with independently recorded evidence. And as examples of police reports contradicted by video become increasingly common, a couple of things are likely to happen: Prosecutors and courts will be less inclined to uncritically accept police testimony, even in cases where there is no video, and bad cops will be deterred by the knowledge that their misconduct is apt to be recorded.”

As such technology becomes cheap and ubiquitous, police will increasingly operate in an atmosphere where such monitoring is expected — and feared — as a routine part of their job. Even the most stupid and brutal of cops will always carry, in the backs of their minds, the significant possibility that this might be one of the times they’ve got an audience.

New technology, empowering the individual, will soon deter cops in a way that decades of civilian review boards and police commissions failed to achieve.

So the goo-goos have it backwards. Don’t waste time trying to change the law. Just disobey it.

23 comments

Interesting take on politics in general and political theory in particular. The classic liberal vs the traditional conservative. Read it, leave a comment, follow, tell a friend to do the same. Become part of the solution by joining the revolution http://confederateunderground.blogspot.com/2010/1…

Good article which makes several valid points. However, many people have difficulty breaking the law because most of us were conditioned from birth to obey, and because they overestimate the risk of being caught. But in fact, laws are nothing more than the whims of a handful of politicians, and most laws can be easily, routinely, and safely broken with no more effort than that required to coordinate one's wardrobe or operate an automobile safely. And, like anything, the more you do it, the easier it gets.

"I saw a couple of heartening news items this past week that illustrate the same principle. First, a judge in Missoula County Montana complained that it would soon likely become almost impossible to enforce anti-marijuana laws because of the increasing difficulty of seating juries. In a recent drug case, so many potential jurors in the voir dire process declared their unwillingness to enforce the pot laws that the prosecution chose to work out a plea deal instead. The defendant’s attorney stated that public opinion “is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances…” The same thing happened in about sixty percent of alcohol cases under Prohibition."

Have you a link to this? I'd like to forward it to New Zealand's marijuana activism lists.

I personally don't think the division between working with and outside the system is necessarily so stark. You are almost undoubtably right in an American context, where civil rights exist on paper only and the system is hopeless. But in New Zealand MPs aren't at an out-of-touch exalted social level, radicals can get into Parliament, and minor parties are hopeless. There's simply a great deal more functioning democracy, and this is understood to extend to political civil disobedience. I've participated in several public smoke-ins on Parliament's steps, and the same people organising the march also try to influence the government through the Green Party and the Law Commission- and they're quite optimistic about success. It's just a different socio-political atmosphere.

I agree that working within the system pretty much guarantees ceding the playing field to your opponent, who after all is also the referee, ruling body and rulemaking body. Politics isn't a sanctioned athletic competition. Neither is business. I see a similar weakness in the goo-goo's economic analog, the 'social entrepreneurship' fad. You can't tame the business world into something humane by running a business. Inevitably your principals (i.e. financiers) will claim veto power over your principles.

In addition to the parliamentary system, which is more democratic as you say, you've also got the advantage of a smaller sized polity.

In the case you mention it sounds like they're optimistic about success precisely because there is a wing of the movement that is willing to engage in direct action. The pro-smoke movement is essentially good cop/bad cop-ing the government. Actionistas flouting the law on one hand and causing a legitimacy crisis and then offering legislators a way to save face by "compromising" with the political wing on the other. That's great movement strategy. (although a bit different than what Kevin is outlining above.)

But in order to do something like that you need a movement that is very clear about whose team they're on and what the teams even are for that matter. In the US the goo-goo's don't even know what they're fighting for, much less who the enemy is, and at the end of the day perpetuation of state power is alway more important to them than any particular policy change. They're company men to the bitter end.

Don't forget the example of homeschooling. It is not legal in all 50 states because a legislature controlled by the teacher's union wanted to help kids, but because parents decided to homeschool, despite laws previously making it illegal. Eventually the law caught up with reality (although the attempt to co-opt homeschooling was also there – but a healthy population of parents not even compliant with the modest regulation of state approved homeschooling also dooms that strategy to failure).

Laws are made by thugs, to turn people into sheep. They should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Aster: I'm glad Josh supplied the link, because I deleted it from my email and emptied the trash after I got through writing this.

You're probably right that the state is less virulent. Although coercion is the defining feature of the state qua state, the state is made up of human beings, some of them doing pretty much what they'd be doing if things were organized voluntarily. The state is really just a bunch of human beings doing stuff, who can do it in a more or less "statelike" manner.

Lori: That would be true if dependence on outside finance were a constant. But one of the most revolutionary changes in the world today is the imploding capital outlays required to undertake production. If it's possible to run a business on a hundredth the capital it took to perform the same function twenty years ago, and laws for suppressing competition from such businesses are becoming unenforceable, then it should have a serious taming effect on the business world.
My recent post Homebrew Industrial Revolution in Kindle Format

I disagree with the idea that most people are inherently obedient; they will break ANY law that they feel is 'pointless'.

We all know 'law and order' types (like my own dear mum) who
* exceed the 'speed limit'; or
* overtake on double-whites; or
* do a U-turn where it's prohibited, or
* run a yellow-turning-red light.

Likewise, almost everybody I know will admit to having driven while "probably over the limit" at some point in their lives.

So the 'germ' is there; all we have to do is convince people to widen their perceived sert of laws that are 'ridiculous' (my mother's defence when I pointed out she was overtaking on double-white lines – and exceeding the speed limit while doing so – when she picked me up from the rail station on Dec 23rd!)

At the end of the day, people will not let 'bad law' interfere with the expression of their preferences: hence folks who want drugs, get them (albeit at prices that embody a huge risk premium to compensate suppliers); just as folks who wanted a drink during Prohibition, got one.

Radley Balko's point about recording the cops is something that we of the sousveillance movement have written about since micro-cams became cost-effective (e.g., the MD80); uploadability makes it so much better (which is why my home surveillance system streams onto non-detelable web storage).

On reading the headline, here was I thinking that C4SS was about to embrace Jim Bell's "undermine the operational effectiveness of state drones by running Death pools on bad cops" mechanism… perhaps y'all think it's still a little early to be there yet.

I certainly don't – which is why I think everybody ought to read http://jya.com/ap.htm to get a handle on the most efficient (in terms of 'bang for the bang') mechanism for helping undermine the ability of state goons to tyrannise us Mundanes.

GT, one problem – both ethical and tactical – I have with direct action against public servants is that, at least in Australia, they comprise a curious blend of good (ethical, competent) and bad (unscrupulous, sometimes incompetent) people. The lower levels have more of the good ones, who often act to make a bad system treat people right, finding loopholes etc. in a botched and far too rapidly changing framework of laws and regulations – they are anti-Kevin Rudds, since it is the Kevin Rudds who cause all that and unknowingly rely on the others to bail them out. In my experience, nearly all branches of the public service mostly have these good people at the interface with the public, with the principal exceptions being the police (who are about half good and half bad) and social services (who until recently were a dumping ground for the other branches, but have been improving). This means not only that targeting low level public servants – whether with prejudice or with lesser forms of harassment, e.g. boycotts and/or poll taxes when and where “join and sabotage” could take over local governments – could remove potential allies but also that it could alienate and polarise them against the public they currently identify with.

As well as the earlier Irish “join and sabotage” methods (that used Westminster), one parallel we could learn from is what the Irish did from 1916 on: they targeted low and middle level public servants who couldn’t be protected cost-effectively in sufficient numbers (violently, as suited their particular circumstances), but selectively, using inside information they gained from those public servants who were of their persuasion – even getting information from at least one middle level police officer who could get at the files within Dublin Castle itself.

I wholeheartedly agree with you except for one little quibble:which is why my home surveillance system streams onto non-detelable web storage

Unless you own the servers and they are in the possession of someone you trust, don't bet on the information remaining yours for all time. The Wikileaks/Amazon fiasco clearly highlighted the dangers of "the cloud" with regard to information security.

That's a very good point, Todd S.; were it possible to uplod in real time to freenet or some other such distributed mechanism, I would do that instead. Like quite a few people, I have cancelled my use of AMZN's AWS/S3 services for static site components: they are free to lick the whip, but I am free to refuse to deal with them when they make it clear that they will roll over the moment uncle Stupid tells them to… while providing an implausible rationale – in the best traditions of US-CEO bullshit.

Given that fully a half-dozen of my close family are in the 'Defence' establishment (4 at EL1 or higher, 2 in the SES), I hope that they are part of a 'join and sabotage' operation… but my hopes aren't high. The idea of getting information on PS types is a good one, too – that is used all the time by the intelligence community, and forms a good part of the basis for Wikileaks' 'insurance file'.

The problem with the 'good guys at the bottom' idea is that it's only ever been half-true; one might be the beneficiary from time to time of inexplicable leniency from those of the Fat Blue Whine, but those who join it have a very similar psychotype to those who join the military (ignore the officer caste, whose motivations are different).

The history of police corruption inquiries is also replete with the 'primrose way' – whereby apparently-upright police are suborned to perjury on behalf of a corupt colleague, or 'forced' to participate in corruption as some form of 'loyalty test'.. where the loyalty being tested is loyalty to a corrupt conspiracy, not to the 'ideals' they are supposed to represent. ('Ideals' being PR for 'enforcement of whatever set of dicates spew out of the collective deliberations of the tax-parasites of the political class').

Also, consider the mindset of a man who is prepared to wield deadly force against one of his own class, at the whim of the political class (who would be SHATTERED if their daughters married constables – although the constable would look forward to rapid rise through the ranks).

As Thoreau famously said in 'Civil Disobedience': "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt."

In any case, the true 'OrgA' version of the Liberty Pool concentrates solely on those members of the state's droog squads who have done wrong to somebody and have gone unpunished by the State's review processes (there are hundreds of examples in the US, every year; the example of Jean Charles de Manezes is a good one for the UK). The core aim of the limited violence – and subsequent information campaign to the colleagues of the target – is a 'chilling effect' whereby

(1) the price of being a brutal jerk are raised such that the marginal would-be brutal jerk decides it is in his best interest to refrain from brutality; and

(2) the perceived 'blind side' career risk to being a cop per se is raised, thereby forcing a tilt in the cost-benefit nalysis undertaken by would-be recruits (although many of them are stupid enough to be ATTRACTED by the risk – there being, as Adam Smith said, "scarce a man alive who, when in tolerable health and spirits, does not over-estimate his chances of sucess").

The darker, 'OrgB' pools simply respond to prices; it doesn't matter if the target has done nothing at all, it's a simple matter that somehow their name ends up "in the hat" with sufficient money behind it for the market to do its work (currently that's about $500 for a brutal beating, and $2500 for a dirt-nap; psychotics abound and can be found in vengeance portals all over the world).

There are even folks who hold the 'Little Eichmann' view of anybody who so much as lifts a pen on behalf of the machinery of tyranny; thus clerks, cleaning staff – in fact the whole government workforce – become 'valid' objects (and since they are 'soft targets' they are easier, too). I don't hold to that view, but only because I think that concentrating on the brutalisers will suffice (government finances being in the shape they are) and the brutalisers are far more vulnerable than they think (e.g., when they're not wearing their Kevlar storm-trooper dressups; the adress of many of them can be had at low cost).

As to whether little Daniel Miralles (who should not be allowed anywhere near children: anyone who sends their kids to LILA should be warned) is a concern: if he was genuinely doing me harm, the 'OrgB' discussion above applies. I have no qualms about massively asymmetric retaliatory violence – my own military days sociopathised me nicely, and I know precisely where to procure OrgB services should it cross my mind to do so.

That said, I hold the view that intellectual property is fiction, and that therefore my reputation is not my property – so there is nothing of mine to which I can claim violence is being done. Principles are often annoying; in this specific instance the urge to abandon them surfaces sporadically.

Further to the "reputation not being one's own" idea, when thinking about conducting a campaign of that nature, you have to consider the likelihood that your adversary will participate, then escalate.

For example, let's assume that Miralles can convince someone whose opinion I care about that everything he claims is true; the odds of any serious consequences are minimal. The interests of 'non-aligned' individuals will not lead them to do anything except perhaps write something on the internet. In the scheme of things, that's not going to change the taste of my toast.

Now, let's assume that someone became convinced that Daniel Miralles was, say, a pedophile… those close to him might (and should) dismiss it out of hand, but they're not the target audience. The number of pedophiles being beaten to twitching messes as a result of OrgB pools is growing faster than Wikileaks document repositories. All it requires, is a plausible narrative in the right receptacle.

As I've said to Daniel before, it's silly to expect a 5'5" man to understand the 'long' game when he can't see far unless standing on a chair. This is precisely the sort of thing that happens when the French take on the Saxons; the Gallic 'sneak attack' feels good, but eventually it's always humiliation for poor Froggo.
hahaha.

A reasonably-spec'd low-wattage server machine at a reasonable price. Never gonna run much on it, obv… but good enough that TOR recommends it for those wanting to set up a node. (It's about the spec of a spare machine I have running my freenet node on Ubuntu).

Here is the email we received from Geoffrey Transom's girl friend parents after they received a pack of evidences from us of what they did in France. Fact.
DM

Patrick Varney
to me

show details Mar 19

Dear Daniel and Jennifer,

No, sad to say, after her initial emotional response, Sarah has not been able to raise the subject and we are reluctant to see her so upset again. She didn't speak to us for some weeks and is still very guarded with us.

I believe that she will have to face up to what she has been involved iin before she can get on with her life. But that would mean she sees Geoff for what he is, and I can see that this is too much to ask for the moment.

It is heartening to see some actual discussion of the "enforcement" aspect of laws. Unfortunately it has been my observation that the majority of online discussion is aimed at the origination and/or continuation of legislation (and likely TV and print media also, when the "problem" of some law is discussed at all) .

For more than 5 years online I have written – in my own articles and comments online (as well as verbally in person) – that the enforcers are the key element in maintaining/growing the State, and therefore in bringing about its withering away.

I strongly urge that everyone please keep the following in mind always. The politicians and bureaucrats – rulers – do *not* get out into the field and enforce their own legislation/decrees/mandates/etc or even their own opinions. Instead they – including Obama together with his chief underlings – depend on the enforcers to do the dirty work, both domestically via the enormous numbers of agencies federal, state and local and also the branches of the military. Therefore the enforcers are the key!! Politicians and bureaucrats simply talk and write, even when it is to give orders – whether to enforcers or directly to ordinary citizens (via Internet blogs/vids, phone, snail and email pronouncements for the latter).

Strong negative Social Preferencing – withdrawal or refusal of voluntary association with the reasons made public – towards government enforcers who continue in that role after attempts to logically persuade them of their errors (offers of assistance in obtaining new productive jobs is a good idea for those known personally), is the needed step. Public identification (photos, names and location) of these continuing government enforcers will enable others to also Socially Preference against them, thereby increasing the social pressure to change their employment, their major interaction behavior – use cellphone cameras and the Internet to the fullest. This selective (discriminating) association to exclude those who cause harm is a potentially *very* powerful method of non-violent action, referred to as ostracism by many down through the ages. It is included in Gene Sharp's 2nd volume (of 3), "The Politics of Nonviolent Action", Chapter 4, "The Methods of Social Noncooperation".

Even in the current very unfree societies (of which the US is a major one), negative Social Preferencing can be effectively used to influence individual social behavior and the actions of the State. I wrote about this practice in general most recently (April 2009) in "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order" – http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html

So I hope in the very near future to see more articles and comments from others making use of the understanding that government enforcers are *the* key to turn – pun intended – for the withering away of the State.

Hey Kevin, absolutely correct and many are practicing the various free market approaches such as boycotts, civil disobedience etc. to correcting free market problems of government interventions. I want everyone however to look at a proposal that I have been working on. A little deception is in place however, as I'm am trying to appeal to everyone, not just anarchists and mini-archists. My goal is to create a replacement judicial system that is superior to our current injustice system. Shouldn't be very difficult from a systems approach. Once created, the system would be tested using real life Supreme Court cases. We will publish our opinion in sequence with theirs. That's when the fund should start. Getting Public appeal to enbrace the our opinions over the crappy Supreme Court.
My recent post Cost to Produce Web Based Judicial System